Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m

[Oliver Scholz <alkibiades@gmx.de>]

I wrote:
>>>  I really wish it would be more actively developed, because
>>>  actually it is my favourite browser. And yes, I know emacs-w3m
>>>  and I use it as a last resort, when Emacs/W3 fails to render a
>>>  page. I am not happy with this, though.

And then I wrote:
> [Actually on my system Emacs/W3 is not reliable only in cases, where
> emacs-w3m is not reliable, too: in dealing with images and some
> advanced css stuff (Come to think about it, I doubt that emacs-w3m
> even tries to address the latter). So the main disadvantage is that
> Emacs/w3 is slow. Very slow, to be sure.]

I realize now that theese statements may seem a bit contradictory. I
should add that in the former case I was talking about the CVS version
of Emacs/W3 which I used until recently on my old work station and
which indeed failed to render some pages (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu
being my main source of grief -- or maybe url.el is to blame
here?). The latest released version (which I use now) works
o.k. AFAICS.

Large pages can get even a new computer on its knees, though. :-(

    Oliver
-- 
14 Brumaire an 211 de la Révolution
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité!